1338
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 79 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Whats interesting is that most people would consider the original to be art, and most people would consider just the cocks to not be art, but are the cocks with the statement of intent art or naw? If just the cocks are not art, and the cocks with the statement are, then do the cocks become art if the artist knows about the art that used to be there? Do they become art if the viewer knows about the cocks and infers the missing statement? That's the interesting question here, because it implies that the piece can be art to one person who knows the context and not art to another person who is only aware of the cocks.

[-] _number8_@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago

it's art but not aesthetically pleasing art

[-] Buddahriffic@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah, it feels kinda like OP is really wondering if what's there now is just as good as what used to be there because it might still be labeled "art". Not all art is equal, and I'd much rather have nice looking art than art that says "this used to look nice but now it's just dicks". But, given that some asshole decided to just paint over it with monocolour, I'd rather have that "fuck you" than to see it left blank.

I hope the 2nd artist has the determination to put it back if the owners try to get rid of it again, but the patience to wait until they stop watching it so they don't get caught. Or make them spend money on a surveillance system and someone to monitor it but still put it back one or two lines at a time. Until the owners have an aneurysm and it eventually ends up in the hands of someone more chill.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (31 replies)
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
1338 points (98.1% liked)

Funny

6606 readers
803 users here now

General rules:

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS